User talk:Skinwalker

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster

Hello, Skinwalker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Viriditas | Talk 05:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan

The Wiki guidelines state articles are supposed to be 20 to 30K. The old article was becoming way too long and bloated. Talk pages document well document why. It need a good bit of editing down to remove duplications, correct punctuation and specifically the misplaced " environmental criticism ", the contributor of which was refusing to take on board the very fair and detailed counter-criticism.

This criticism was founded on the original contributor's use of statistics that pointed out the deforestation caused by soya bean consumption was due to it being used for the meat industry. A point the contributor repeatedly refused to acknowledge on either the topic or personal talk page. I am happy to go into more detail about this but simply put neither soya nor rice are synonymous with vegan. If there are issue arising from their production that it best placed on their own topic pages. It is plain hypocritical to use criticism of the meat industry as a criticism of veganism.

I'd go easy on accusation of " vandalism ". The definition of vandalism is simple and clear. What you have here is an edit to fit the topic within guidelines. Very little apart from duplications and a tiny inhouse politicking have actually been removed. It is par for the course that contentious topics becoming overweight and bloats as antagonistic parties chose to pad out their POVs with claims and rebuttals but at the end of the day, a wiki topic is just meant to define what something is and give you a few links to go find out more. Not a discussion forum or political soapbox. 195.82.106.64 09:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your aggressive edit warring and vandalism have resulted in Veganism being protected. There is absolutely no consensus on the Talk: Veganism page for your edits. Trimming fat is one thing; you are removing material that does not conform to your POV. It is disingenuous for you to claim that disagreements over agriculture are "tiny inhouse politicking", and you know it. Please stop vandalizing the article before your IP gets banned.Skinwalker 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding anon

It seems this particular anon is propagating a very biased view in Wikipedia across related articles like Environmental vegetarianism etc. where he is merrily changing everything to suit his view. Even my tags of POV and limited geographic scope are being constantly removed by him. The Veganism page was locked for a while, but if he continues this abusive behaiour, I'll be reporting him in a couple of days. We'll see where it goes from here. Tx for the concern. --Idleguy 11:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR/me

I took great care not to revert three times. Retract it immediately. --Leifern 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veganism RfC

"Whether to include information about environmentally destructive agriculture of meat animals, and whether to include information about rates of eating disorders among vegans and vegetarians. Page has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign to eliminate contradictory information."

Skinwalker, please explain yourself. I wish to know where you got the idea of some LiveJournal campaign, and why you placed such an opinion on the RfC page. I'm not sure how much attention you've been paying to the article, or know of the users involved in the attempt to bring it back to something resembling neutrality, but Nidara was active on this article before I came back to it, as was Francis Tyers. We've been the three doing most everything, and the other users that I've seen are established as well. Do you know what my motives are? Do you even know if I have any? No. You don't. No matter what you assume, you don't know. So please don't go around saying so. I do not appreciate it. Canaen 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I placed this "opinion" of a livejournal campaign on the RfC as a result of a few simple google and technorati searches. If you edit my RfC summary again I will report you for vandalism. It is perfectly clear what your motive is: to eliminate any information that contradicts vegan dogma. Do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise. How long will it take you to move this exchange over to your "nonsense" page? You are generating serious bad faith around here, and I therefore suggest you tone down your belligerent and self-righteous attitude. Cheers, Skinwalker 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from assuming things that you do not know, particularly in reference to other people. To suggest that I am so intollerant is highly offensive to me. So is suggsting that I have any ulterior motives, or that I follow any sort of dogma. A continuation of this will result in my reporting you for making personal attacks, as well as harrassment. I don't like using Admins this way; it's not very conducive to building an encylcopedia. However, at present, you are preventing me from that very task, and so in this instance it is. This will not go to me Nonsense page, because I brought the issue up here, on your talk page. I therefore regard this as the place to discuss the issue. Again, please refrain from attacking me. It doesn't get either of us anywhere. Canaen 04:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Canaen, as I've repeatedly mentioned on your talk page, moving polite discussion to a sub-page titled "nonsense" in your user space is not conducive to civility. I recently left you a number of polite comments regarding consensus, edit summaries, personal attacks, and civility, only to be accused of "defacing" your talk page and having my comments labeled "nonsense" and being told they were "worthless". After pointing out that I found this disturbing and highly damaging to effective communication and asking you to refrain from doing it, you intentionally did it again, moving my polite comments to a "nonsense" page with the edit summary "nonsense". Please keep this in mind when making your "report". Thank you. --Viriditas 06:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, I know your position about my page. I have tried to explain it to you. I use Nonsense very lightly, and explained this to you. I appreciate your reminders, I really do. However, they aren't incredibly relevant anymore. especially to others. I can access my Nonsense page whenever I like, as can anyone else if they've a mind to read its contents. My edit summary of "nonsense" was because the edit invovled my nonsense page. If it truly is that big of a deal to you, I will change my words. However, I sincerely wish you to know that I am not trying to offend you with those words. Canaen 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I notice that you have stated that Veganism "has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign to eliminate contradictory information." Can you offer any links (or diffs) to discussion on which you base this claim? I only ask because I haven't been following this issue as closely as I would like. And, if this is indeed the case, I believe that according to WP:SOCK (see Meatpuppets section) we may treat them as sock puppets. Please leave me a comment on my talk page or send me an email. Thank you. --Viriditas 07:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've found it, and I've added the link to the RFC page. --Viriditas 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to collect the diffs (links) for the personal attacks from the edit history. I'll ask an admin to contact you. --Viriditas 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My collection is being placed here: /RfC Skinwalker 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets not put the link on the RfC please -- evidence can be diplayed on the relevent talk page, but the RfC project page is not the place to continue the dispute. Thanks! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

While I completely agree that the link and suspected meatpuppetry may be relevant to the current content dispute, I do not agree that the RfC page is the right place for that discussion. The LiveJournal link is discussed on the talk page already and I'd hope anyone wading into the RfC would be contentious enough to read about the dispute before offering an opinion. I know it has to be incredibly difficult dealing with the personal attacks and threats -- I noticed that the IP did receive a block for their behavior, so perhaps you'll have a little relief. I put note on the Admin's notice board that I made the change and someone is welcome to revert it if they feel the longer comment on the RfC was more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental vegetarianism

Could you come and take a look at the Environmental vegetarianism page, read through it thoroughly and give your opinions on the talk page, noting if you have any objections. I've tried to introduced a world-wide view into the article as well as making it NPOV and would like to get your input - FrancisTyers 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi, there. I wish you had waited a little bit longer to post the RfC. It really needs a lot of work, and many of the links need to be fixed. I'm attempting to clean some of it up. --Viriditas 03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted recent vandalism to your talk page by 195.82.106.78 (talk • contribs) You can view it here. --Viriditas 09:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked 195.82.106.78 for 24 hours. I've had enough. He had been warned twice about personal attacks but just kept on going. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we'll block that one too. We'll stop it. Just a nasty troll. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on Veganism

I can't name any specifics other than the "pigs in crates" picture. Overall the artcle seems to exhibit a form of pro-vegan bias. I'll look at it more. --Member 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veganism

Put a request up at requests for protection on that. I think I'm too involved to judge. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Coronado revert

I see you reverted my recent changes to the Rod Coronado article. I explained in the Talk page why I thought the statements were POV and removed/changed them. Why did you revert them? Mycota 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the fact that you put the "terrorist" charge later in the article and gave it more context. I still didn't like the ELF reference in the intro, since he is not a part of that movement. But I added a bit to clarify his actual views and allegiances. Mycota 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

You call references to clinical studies POV? --Leifern 20:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veganism

Hi, again. When you have time, I would appreciate it if you could respond to my comment directed towards Idleguy in the "Ethical criticism: Intensive farming" section over at Talk:Veganism. Also, could you address Canaen's latest comment in that same section? Thanks. I'm just trying to get a representative sample of opinions. —Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Koko_nipple_luv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Koko_nipple_luv.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nortman homeopathy

I've left note on User:Davidnortman re his bad behaviour. If we proceed to RfC you may like to do same. Mccready 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] veganism and feminism

noticed that you removed my inclusion on the sex of the majority of livestock with the reason 'uncited'. i've reincluded it with a {{fact}} tag. the statement as it stands is referenced in Carol Adams work, although references are unavailable online. i think, though, that if you stop to ponder the source of products such as eggs and milk and consider the absence of rooster at your local supermarket you may come to the conclusion that such a reference may not be entirely necessary. frymaster 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venlafaxine

I put a mergeto tag on the discontinuation section of Venlafaxine, after the POV-ish edit this morning. After you have removed the POV-section, I have decided to go on and boldly merge the section into another page, leaving (for what I know, I'm a chemist, not very knowledgable about pharma) the minimum of the original section. Could you check over the pages to see if the information contained is relevant (with chemical compounds I try to uphold the philosophy that the data in the compound should describe the compound, not extra things, and if a part is split off and gets a {{main}}, it should be reduced to a minimum). Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is where I do not have the knowledge, in which class of pharmaceutical to put the specifics, could use some help there (I'm a synthetic chemist in organic and organometallic chemistry, post-doc at Cardiff university at the moment). The subject in venlafaxine seems big enough to warrant an own article then, i.s.o. in ISSR disc. synd. I will leave that to others.

I know/experience that these pages attract a lot of POV edits (e.g. bupropion and the edits made by the IP's in the range 62.56.xx.yy, see also [User talk:62.56.55.227] and here, I'm the chemist in question, I guess). The points people make are sometimes OK, and I try then to merge them into a less POV way (as I tried for bupropion). But my main edits on chemical pages are more 'getting the pages into one line' (user:beetstra/Chemicals), but stumble across these edits every now and then. When too obvious I will rvert, hope that the rest will be spotted by others. Thanks, hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthorexia nervosa (again)

Hi,

After reading your comment and giving it some thought, you're right; the DSM-IV photo is maybe a bit much. Sorry. However, I feel otherwise what I wrote is certainly not POV. There's a very formal, strict process in the western, industrialized world for how medicine and science work. Asserting that Orthorexia nervosa is neither science nor medicine because it works outside this process, and has not been peer-reviewed because it's professionals see no value in it, wouldn't be any different than making the same claims about shark cartilage being a miracle cure for cancer. Or, if you see a difference, please clarify, because I don't see it. There's a danger of striving so much to be neutral that you give a false impression. FireWeed 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclator (talk • contribs)

Please help me baby sit this pov warrior on Veganism. Kellen ^T 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hartal and legal threats

I'm too involved to make a block, but you may want to talk to Will Beback who has warned Hartal before. JoshuaZ 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aha!

Well, that explains it. I was wondering where all these angry people were coming from. Suppose this explains it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperialism

I completely disagree with your comments and maybe you, as an obvious imperialist, can justify your claim that this excellent piece is so POV? Peter morrell 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I will mount a defence of my article in due course...am a bit busy right now, but it will appear hopefully within a few days...cheers Peter morrell 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Vithoulkas

Adam is entering FALSE information, repeatedly. He is a WP editor. That can get both WP and Adam sued. This is not a threat, is a reality, and you'll be in a very difficult position tomorrow if this attitude continues.

Well, it's very interesting you intentionally support Adam's behaviour. You want it your way, you have 24 hour to resolve this, according to the three-revert rule. After that, other measures will be used. Homeopathic 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW there's nothing personal with Adam like you described. The fact is he is intentionally misleading and misinforming users worldwide regarding Homeopathy and Vithoulkas. I suggest you read the article he refers to *carefully* to understand the situation. This will be dealt formally if necessary.Homeopathic 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace W. Rhodes

Yes, it should be discussed, I noticed you did not offer any discussion on the article's page, why the rush to AFD? You're moving it ti AFD because I deleted the unclear tag? Not everything is a about you, it wasn't a slight, just put a clearer one up if you think it should be there, and add some discussion. I think you have me mistaken for someone with an agenda. I'm a microbiologist if you give me some time I will add some content and references, if not, oh well.Tstrobaugh 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. The part I was confused about, and still am is:"I added the bit about moving to AFD since this is the usual step after the prod is removed." I don't see anything like that on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, where does it come from?Tstrobaugh 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Vithoulkas editors

Think Miri Rozenberg and Homeopathic are the same person? They seem rather similar, and Miri started editing just as Homeopathic began only talking on the talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, but I'd say no until further evidence. Homeopathic likes to argue on talk pages, and he rarely uses edit summaries. Ms. Rozenberg, on the other hand, shows up and blanks large sections of the article and SHOUTS IN HER EDIT SUMMARY, which I haven't seem Homeopathic do - and she has ignored the talk page, despite my 3RR warning asking her to discuss changes. They seem to have slightly differing, um, syntactical issues with English, judging from the limited amount of Ms. Rozenberg's writing I've seen. While I would love to see the results of a checkuser on some of the single-purpose accounts, I think our main problem here is one of meatpuppetry. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthorexia peer-reviewed studies - full text located and available for reference use

Hello - Regarding your comments on Talk:Orthorexia nervosa#"A first scientific study on the subject was published in 2004...": - I have located the full text of the studies you abstracted from the peer-reviewed journal you mentioned. The PDFs are not authorized for publication in full on Wikipedia, but under WP:FAIR reasonably short quotations or references would be acceptable to include in the main Orthorxia article. Please contact me by email to discuss this further if you like. You can reach me by email through my user page at User:Parzival418 by clicking the toolbox link for "E-mail this user" on the left hand side of the page. Your Wikipedia account is not currently set up for you to receive emails from your user page so please include you email address in the message so I can reply by email. Parzival418 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster  !!!

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for saving Frederick K. Humphreys. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks indeed

I did read your complaint (strange as it was, since it only involved two reverts (not a 3RR), both of which were trivial and both are still in the current version of the article as they are perfectly straightforward and perfectly in accord with WP policy). And I did note that you strongly suggested sockpuppetry. What the heck that has to do with four edits that were explicitly from the same person I don't know. Perhaps you have a new definition of the word. --192.150.5.150 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)